More people arrested in the UK over......a Joke.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
Who gets to decide the difference between a hate crime and a joke?

One thing I don't understand, why do people call this "a joke"? Where's the joke in burning a paper replica of a building that burned down killing several people?

I think that is the point folks are trying to make. To you, it may not be a joke, but to someone else it would be. Who decides what is and is not a joke when it is soooooo subjective a topic?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
Who gets to decide the difference between a hate crime and a joke?

One thing I don't understand, why do people call this "a joke"? Where's the joke in burning a paper replica of a building that burned down killing several people?

I think that is the point folks are trying to make. To you, it may not be a joke, but to someone else it would be. Who decides what is and is not a joke when it is soooooo subjective a topic?

If these same people had made a similar " joke" about the twin towers and all the people jumping to their deaths, would you feel the same way?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
Who gets to decide the difference between a hate crime and a joke?

One thing I don't understand, why do people call this "a joke"? Where's the joke in burning a paper replica of a building that burned down killing several people?

I think that is the point folks are trying to make. To you, it may not be a joke, but to someone else it would be. Who decides what is and is not a joke when it is soooooo subjective a topic?

If these same people had made a similar " joke" about the twin towers and all the people jumping to their deaths, would you feel the same way?

Honestly,. yes, I would.

I may not like it, I may deride it, but I would never request someone be arrested for it at all. I felt the same way when Whats'-her-face posed with the severed head of Trump. Short of asking her to be investigated for threatening a president (which is illegal) , to ensure she was not a true threat. I never advocated fro her arrest for that display of her brand of humor.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Fair enough, arrest does seem a little over the top, but at the end of the day the law is the law, regardless of how we feel about it.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I think that is the point folks are trying to make. To you, it may not be a joke, but to someone else it would be.

I asked because I really want to know why people call this a joke. A joke is supposed to be a story with an unexpected end that makes people laugh. In this case I see nothing like that.

My question is not because I don't find it funny, it's because it doesn't fit the definition of "joke", so why people call it that?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Asktheanimals

The thing is no-one is prepared to put in words here on ATS or anywhere else for that matter what nearly everyone knows about Grenfell Towers and what people talk about in pubs and clubs the length and breadth of the UK.

People are free to say what they want but publicise it on social media etc....that's another thing altogether.

Don't get me wrong, the people responsible are pure pond life and deserve a good kicking, but jail....?

And as usual there is a PC agenda being pandered too.

If you look at the history of building safety, you will see that it was our elected officials who make sprinkler systems mandatory in new buildings but not retrofitted to existing ones as it was "too expensive".

MP's had actually gone through the old lawbooks and turfed out anything related to fire safety:

www.newcivilengineer.com...

"...However, the “gamechanger” took place in 1984 when Building Regulations were altered and the Building (Approved Inspectors) Regulations became law. But for many years to come the local authority Building Control still performed its role.

Lashmar, said that the change “for the worst” began when the Fire Safety (workplace) Regulations 1997 replaced Section 9(a) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

Coupled with regulatory reform in 2005 – which Lashmar claims was pushed through by the EU the fire brigades were told to take a “hands off approach” to fire safety, according to Lashmar."

Now the MP's get all prickly and go on the offensive, huffing and puffing up their chests, sounding all superior when Grenfell is mentioned and tut-tutting at those responsible for making that video. Last time, they tried to blame the fire brigade for the "stay in place" rule. That rule would have worked had residents not been drilling holes through internal and external walls in order to install satellite TV systems with dishes outside their
windows. That let fire travel through. Then doors were left open. Then the heat from that external cladding was enough to ignite materials behind
windows.

a reply to: stormcell

Spot on.

One of the issues that is getting brushed under the carpet because if the full story ever got out into the public domain it would have far reaching consequences right into the corridors of power and certain sensitivities, agenda's and vested interests would be compromised.

About those colored figures in the windows:
What color are paper bags?
Was it a kid that cut them out?

a reply to: Freeborn

Interesting that folk get more riled up about this story than about the people that actually died in this very avoidable tragedy.

Those responsible need their collars felt.

everywhere should have freedom of speech m but you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say and do !

just because you have the right to say something doesnt mean you should say it in public.

it's double standards by government and justice system, we dont lock up frankie boyle for making jokes about rape , pedos and murder, and dont lock up huge mega corporations for tax evasion but we chase the working man/women for 1000 pounds tax revenue and for making distasteful and disrespectful jokes about the loss of life .

the UK is not a democracy , if you cant speak freely !
its only going to get worse as people these days are offended by the sun rising the wind blowing

originally posted by: crayzeed
Think on this one. People get arrested for burning an effigy of Grenfell Towers, yet the people who made the actual Grenfell Towers the death trap it was go scot free.

This has been my thoughts ever since this cardboard box story hit the headlines.


The men haven't harmed a soul, they've been arrested because they burned a box.

But the ones that cladded the building knowingly and purposely with inferior cheap materials in order to maximise profits, which then resulted in scores of people being trapped and burned alive, are all enjoying their liberty. Not one of them arrested for it.

I'm more outraged at that than this 'burned box' story.

causing offense of someones feelings should not be a crime , there is no injury loss or harm
offense is a subjective state of consciousness and cannot be proven in court where objective facts are used to determine the legality of matters .
How can any court in the UK uphold a logical fallacy as a law?

it flies in the face of reason

hate crimes, public offense , all based on logical fallacy , slippery slope , because man A said this will lead to man B causing harm to others !

FALLACY our legal system should be ashamed

a reply to: doobydoll

I agree , however it wasnt just the people who cladded the building but as mentioned those that changed fire safety legislation which led to these issues . Are the workers who cladded the building to be blamed they were simply carrying out their job ?
should bullet manufacturers be held accountable for every human life lost for bullets ?
after all it was an accident waiting to happen , however should we blame the cladding manufacturers the installation teams , or the legislators ?

a reply to: sapien82

I don't think that they have actually been charged yet with any offence, so let's wait and see before passing any judgment on our legal system, etc..

a reply to: oldcarpy

I'll cite , nazi dog marcus meehan , and yer boy with the # the tories a4 poster !

a reply to: sapien82

Nazi Dog was in Scotland? Different jurisdiction to England and Wales, different system.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I think that is the point folks are trying to make. To you, it may not be a joke, but to someone else it would be.

I asked because I really want to know why people call this a joke. A joke is supposed to be a story with an unexpected end that makes people laugh. In this case I see nothing like that.

My question is not because I don't find it funny, it's because it doesn't fit the definition of "joke", so why people call it that?

Why get so caught up about the definition.

Humor is subjective?

originally posted by: doobydoll

But the ones that cladded the building knowingly and purposely with inferior cheap materials in order to maximise profits, which then resulted in scores of people being trapped and burned alive, are all enjoying their liberty. Not one of them arrested for it.

I'm more outraged at that than this 'burned box' story.

EXACTLY!!!

All this virtual sigling and fake outrage by Theresea May and posters on here about a bad "joke".

Yet 70 odd people DID die and the ones responsible are being ignored.

Burn a box you get arrested.

Burn a tower block and kill 70 people and nothing happens.....

All most like the government are using this fake crime to cover the real one up!

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Its bad taste and offenisve. But being a twat should not be a crime.

The oinks have better and more important things to investigate...... Like the cheapskate slum lords that caused this disaster!

As the OP you seem to keep missing that the "oinks" as you so eloquently did not put it, have not actually sought out the offenders, the offenders did the decent thing they could do and handed themselves in, no charges have been filed, and unless it can be proven that there was intent to harm/distress they should not recieve any time on behalf of her Maj.

The "oinks" as you so eloquently did not put it were risking their own lives on the night of the actual tragedy in Grenfell to save peoples lives along with other emergency services, maybe one day you will require their service and 99% of them will come to your aid without question risking themselves if required.

There are times in my life when I felt the police were overbearing, maybe if I was not doing stupid things to begin with I would not have had to deal with them.

Dont just hate the police because of there badge, anyone who would risk their own life to save someone else cant be that bad.

Oink Oink

a reply to: oldcarpy

even though we are devolved does scotland , england and wales not share the same hate speech law ?